Bible Study - From a non-religious kiwi

[BiggerChungus]

KJV Only is unfortunately a key issue, due to linguistic, historical and theological problems. Right off the bat, I will dismiss folks like Ruckmann, Jack Chick, Kent Hovind and Gail Riplinger. These people and those like them are lunatics and massive hypocrites fishing for clout and profit. Avoid them like the plague if you can.

The website scionofzion.com and the King James Bible Research Council are good sources, though obviously not perfect. Present day 'Bible science' has an absolutely insane story behind it, and the corruption surrounding it is worse than anything KF or ED has ever seen.

That's why I as a Christian am always cautious about Biblical sources. For one I don't believe the Bible was intended to be taken as literal scientific fact on every single thing it talks about, and likewise there've been so many intentional and unintentional mistranslations, modifications, and retcons. You've got to take many translations into account to piece together a whole picture, still taking it with a grain of salt that the book was written by men, even if inspired by God. Not that there's no truth to it, but I don't believe everything is objectively 100% true because in my view that'd be putting a lot of hubris on the authors to not have the same failings as any other of God's creations, whether He gave them wisdom when they wrote it or not. My two cents anyway.

 

[Shig O'nella]

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.

The Bible is people, in all their messy, tempermental, petty glory.

If you want to know what people are - read the Bible.
If you want to know what people can be - read the Tripitaka.

 

[Ishtar]

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

This is probably one of the most accurate observations of human behavior ever written. People don't generally change or improve, they repeat the same patterns of behavior they always have.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

This is probably one of the most accurate observations of human behavior ever written. People don't generally change or improve, they repeat the same patterns of behavior they always have.

And even the saints of Christ are guilty of this to a lesser degree. We can never undo sin and become perfect on our own, the very best we can do is to always combat sin within us and follow Jesus Christ. Only through Him can perfection be gifted to us, if we accept Him and keep to Him to the very end.

 

[TheRetardKing]

 

[Opticana]

Does anyone know of a good article or something on Psalm 68?

 

[John Titor]

Someone might find this video interesting.

Discusses how the Bible was not originally written in English (no shit) and that it's the result of a translation of a translation with some alterations being inevitable and some of it might have been intentional due to politics of the ancient world.

 

[awoo]

I have been doing some reading of Bible verses over the past few months to see if they have any insightful messages for these plague times.

2020’s Most-Read Bible Verse: ‘Do Not Fear’

In an uncertain and difficult year, a record number of people searched for healing, fear, and justice.

www.christianitytoday.com

What struck me as funny is the search graph. "red skies from California wildfires" is correlated with "end times" searches lmao.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

Someone might find this video interesting.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XKp4yWGTfXoDiscusses how the Bible was not originally written in English (no shit) and that it's the result of a translation of a translation with some alterations being inevitable and some of it might have been intentional due to politics of the ancient world.

MMmhm. The Bible did suffer alterations unfortunately, but this does not mean the genuine original is not available to us. Research the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus (and the King James version for English). On this line you will find a traceable, real lineage that is uncorrupted. The best item I can recommend is the Original Languages Bible published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. God's word is still with us, if we only look.

 

[Opticana]

MMmhm. The Bible did suffer alterations unfortunately, but this does not mean the genuine original is not available to us. Research the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus (and the King James version for English). On this line you will find a traceable, real lineage that is uncorrupted. The best item I can recommend is the Original Languages Bible published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. God's word is still with us, if we only look.

The Masoretic text is clearly corrupt at certain points, though. The easiest example is probably the mixup between Merab and Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8, where the KJV inserts words missing in the MT in order to resolve the issue:

Verse 8. - Michal. It was Merab who became the wife of Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19). Michal was childless (see 2 Samuel 6:23). Whom she brought up for. This is one of the many cases of untrustworthiness in the renderings of the Authorized Version. We have noticed a very flagrant instance before in 2 Samuel 5:21. The object of these mistranslations is always the same, namely, to remove some verbal discrepancy in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew says here "five sons of Michal, whom she bare to Adriel;" but Michal never bore a child, therefore something must be substituted which will save the Hebrew from this verbal inaccuracy, and Michal must be represented as having taken Merab's place (perhaps at her death), and been foster mother to her children. This explanation is, it is true, taken from the Jewish Targum; but the Targum never professes to be an exact translation, and constantly perverts the meaning of the plainest passages for preconceived reasons.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

OK so I suggested talking about Genesis this month but my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is definitely at a lower level than some of you...so I guess I'll just throw out a question..

So Noah plants his vineyard and gets drunk and then he's in his tent. And then his son Ham "saw his nakedness." This ends up with Noah cursing Ham's son Canaan.

So what is your take? Was this just literally seeing his dad naked? Code for incest with Noah? Code for incest with mom? Why was Canaan cursed and not Ham?

Three plausible theories

1. Mesopotamian culture of the time considered seeing someone’s nudity a major offense, so it’s more batshit desert lunatic shit

2. In alternative texts, Ham tells publicly about it, so it’s really about Ham shaming his father

3. In other parts of the Bible, seeing someone naked means laying with them. Elsewhere in the Bible parallelism is real common, and Lot in the cave also has a father being molested by his children.

I personally believe #3 as it makes the most literary and real world sense.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

*reads thread*
*sighs*
When it comes to the Bible, the only thing worse than reddit fedoras are A&H retards.

Anyway, the gold standard for a conservative/maximalist view on the historicity of the OT is Kitchen's (unsurprisingly named) "On the Reliability of the Old Testament". I think most of his arguments are very persuasive, but there are a few points where he's a bit too dogmatic.

Re: Source Criticism/"who wrote the Bible" - I don't think there's any one (serious) work with a comprehensive treatment of the subject from a conservative position. Joshua Berman's "Inconsistency in the Torah" is probably the closest thing. There are some flaws (it succeeds more in casting doubt on source criticism than actively proving the unity of the Pentateuch, but tbf the author acknowledges this), but it's certainly worth reading. The chapter on the connections between the Song of the Sea and the Kadesh Inscriptions is incredible.

There's a ton of interesting things to say about the Bible, but if I had to pick one of the top of my head it would be this: there are more Egyptian loanwords in the book of Exodus (supposedly post-exilic fantasy/myth/historical fiction etc.) than there are Persian loanwords in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (indisputably post-exilic books) combined.

Esther is pure fantasy, at least going off what I read in Asimov Guide. The dates are all wrong and the story is absurd. Likely written as a satire of the decadent Persians (from Jewish perspective) and as a nationalist text.

 

[Kosher Dill]

3. In other parts of the Bible, seeing someone naked means laying with them. Elsewhere in the Bible parallelism is real common, and Lot in the cave also has a father being molested by his children.

I personally believe #3 as it makes the most literary and real world sense.

Why would walking backward and carrying a blanket be a precaution against raping one's own father? Why would you need to take a precaution against that at all?

 

[Opticana]

Esther is pure fantasy, at least going off what I read in Asimov Guide. The dates are all wrong and the story is absurd. Likely written as a satire of the decadent Persians (from Jewish perspective) and as a nationalist text.

Why would the dates be wrong? The only dates referenced in the book are counted using the regnal years of Xerxes (or whoever the king is). The only possible issue I can think of that Ezra 4:6 records an accusation against the Jews at the beginning of his reign, and only against those of Judea. But even so, this shows that there was certainly*some sort of issue* going on at the time with the Jews of the Persian empire, and it's not that difficult to come up with explanations as to why the Babylonian and Judean Jews would tell the story differently.

Honestly, the "Esther is fantasy" thing is ridiculous. It completely ignores that the book was written to explain the reasons for the celebration of Purim, which was already going on at the time of its composition (as chapter 9 shows). As far as I know, no one has come up with a convincing alternative explanation for how the holiday got started (there's no other events listed on those dates in Megillat Taanit, for instance). The most obvious explanation is the traditional one - there was a decree against the Jews in the Persian empire and Esther is presenting the events as understood by the author (with the caveat of the usual ancient
literary license applying).

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Why would walking backward and carrying a blanket be a precaution against raping one's own father? Why would you need to take a precaution against that at all?

That's a good point.
I read Genesis recently, but I was zoned out for half the time (I hate reading the Old Testament) so it wasn't real quality reading comprehension.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

The Masoretic text is clearly corrupt at certain points, though. The easiest example is probably the mixup between Merab and Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8, where the KJV inserts words missing in the MT in order to resolve the issue:

Or, Michal was a byname of Merab. Having a byname is something that happens over and over again in the Bible, especially in the historical records, and it legitimately can get confusing or seem like a mistake. The first example of bynaming is with Jacob, who is simultaneously referred to as Israel and Jacob, sometimes the two in the same sentence. The Bible explains itself. You just have to pay careful attention.

 

[Opticana]

Or, Michal was a byname of Merab. Having a byname is something that happens over and over again in the Bible, especially in the historical records, and it legitimately can get confusing or seem like a mistake. The first example of bynaming is with Jacob, who is simultaneously referred to as Israel and Jacob, sometimes the two in the same sentence. The Bible explains itself. You just have to pay careful attention.

There's no indication anywhere in the Bible that this is the case with Michal and Merab. They are clearly two different people - otherwise two of Saul's daughters would have had the same name! Anyway, this still doesn't explain why the King James reads "brought up" instead of "bore to" when the latter ("ילדה") is in the actual Hebrew of the MT. They translate that same word *differently* (and correctly) in the first part of the verse:

If the translators thought that Merab was a just a byname, as you say, they wouldn't have bothered to do this.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

There's no indication anywhere in the Bible that this is the case with Michal and Merab. They are clearly two different people - otherwise two of Saul's daughters would have had the same name! Anyway, this still doesn't explain why the King James reads "brought up" instead of "bore to" when the latter ("ילדה") is the actual Hebrew of the MT. If the translators thought that Merab was a just a byname, as you say, they wouldn't have bothered to do this.

If you read 1 Samuel 18:19-21, it becomes clear that this Merab is bynamed Michal. What gives this away is this: "Merab" is described as being married to Adriel. Later "Michal" is described as loving David, and Saul being pleased about this, as he could use a relationship between David and "Michal" as a device for his plot to have David killed by the Philistines. If "Merab" and "Michal" were different people, why would it have mattered to Adriel and his men that David was with "Michal"? Multiple people having the same name happens.

An example of this is with the 12 apostles. Peter is a byname of Simon, otherwise having the same name as the other Simon, Simon Zelotes.
As recorded by Luke 6:14-16.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Here's an interesting secular explaination of biblical dates in the bible.

The dates of Jesus. 1. The dates

What do ancient sources actually say about the dates of Jesus' life?

kiwihellenist.blogspot.com

 

[BelUwUga]

Good morning. In case it's ambiguous even with my avatar, I am not huge on piety in a strict sense. That said I was raised, baptized, and confirmed in the Presbyterian Church (USA)- since they don't really do excommunication type stuff I'm also an ordained elder. I am trying to get back into my bible studies and figured I'd pop in and say hey. I noticed up thread it sounded like there was maybe a plan to read Genesis this month? I'd like to join group reading if y'all are doing that.

All of that said, some days simply call for a scriptural invocation. I felt my heart calling for Proverbs* 26:11(KJV) this morning. Considering recurring themes I've noticed in general, and current events in particular, it seems very fitting. I had Hebrew and Russian translations queued up anyways and figure I might as well keep them.
"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"
(Hebrew: כְּ֭כֶלֶב שָׁ֣ב עַל־קֵאֹ֑ו כְּ֝סִ֗יל שֹׁונֶ֥ה בְאִוַּלְתֹּֽו Kəḵeleḇ šāḇ 'al-qê'ōw; kəsîl, šōwneh ḇə'iwwaltōw.)
Как пес возвращается на свою блевотину, так и глупец повторяет свою глупость
This is the word of our Lord, thanks be to God!
Amen!
Go forth and may these words inspire you to greater spirituality and introspection on this blessed day!

*Proverbs is a good cheat book by the way if you want/need to prepare something non-denominational/interfaith. It's Old Testament so it is Kosher, it's largely inoffensive to Islam, and it contains some really practical life lessons.